Standing Committee A

[Mr. David Amess in the Chair]

Railways Bill

Clause 15 - Duty of Secretary of State and Transport for London to co-operate

Amendment moved [this day]: No. 34, in page 15, line 3, after 'services', insert ', within Greater London,'.—[Mr. Mark Field]

David Amess: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments:
No. 35, in page 15, line 3, after 'services', insert 
', within Greater London and an area no further than five miles from the border with Greater London,'. 
No. 36, in page 15, line 3, after ''services'', insert 
', within the boundaries of the M25 motorway,'. 
No. 37, in page 15, line 13, leave out paragraph (b). 
No. 38, in page 15, line 14, leave out 'places outside Greater London' and insert 
'from a mainline terminus in Greater London'.

Mark Field: Before I was so rudely interrupted, I was summing up my comments on the amendments. I wish to endorse the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) made on Second Reading:
 ''There will be anxiety too among train operators about how decisions over the allocation of franchises will be taken under the new regime. Most alarming of all, however, is the Government's proposal to hand more power over the railways to Ken Livingstone.'' 
Those hon. Members who have been in the Tea Room may have seen today's Evening Standard, in which Melanie McDonagh refers to the notion that the Mayor of London can no longer be believed on transport-related matters. We have seen only today the concerns about the efficacy, or otherwise, of the oyster card. 
One of our great concerns in relation to the clause is that some two out of three rail journeys begin or end in London. Therefore, the proposal is worrying, especially for passengers travelling to or from stations outside the area for which the Mayor of London is responsible. Passengers may find that it suits the Mayor to stop their fast trains on the edge of London in order to pick up a few more voters. They may also find that fares go up because Transport for London and, by implication, Ken Livingstone, decrees it. 
My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk said on Second Reading:
 ''Just this week, Ken Livingstone's officials at Transport for London caved in to trade union demands for tube workers to be given longer holidays than anyone else in the country. That is a warning of what lies ahead. I wonder whether it was Ken's attitude to cost control that tipped the balance when Ministers in the Department for Transport were deciding about handing over to him a bit more say about how our railways are run. Giving Ken Livingstone power over how trains are run is a sure-fire way to discourage the extra private investment that railways need to attract.'' —[Official Report, 25 November 2004, Vol. 428 c. 261.] 
I reiterate my hon. Friend's question: where will the real accountability lie? Will local authorities in places as far flung as Birmingham, Rugby—I am sure that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Andy King) will make a contribution in a moment or two; it will make a change from his great concerns about airports—Milton Keynes and Watford be given a say about the trains that run from outside London into central London? It is quite clear that the proposed expansion of powers to Transport for London will affect constituents from far afield, not just those in the GLA area. 
I hope that the Minister will have something positive to say on this matter. The amendments are partly probing because it is almost unprecedented to see the powers of Transport for London and therefore the Mayor being pushed into this much broader area. We in London take the Mayor's democratic accountability for granted. We want to see some suggestions that will ensure that the Mayor of London is properly and fully accountable to home counties areas such as Epping Forest—I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) is also here—Spelthorne and many other areas that potentially find themselves under the cosh of the ever increasing power of the Mayor and Transport for London.

David Wilshire: My apologies, Mr. Amess, for being a moment or two late. I have just got off one of Transport for London's trains. I am not sure whether that has anything to do with what I might say.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) said that some of his comments would be stand part issues. If I may go with that, although you may wish to rule otherwise, Mr. Amess, I will be content to cover under these amendments the ground that I want to cover and to accept that there will not be another chance to do so. 
I have a dilemma as to whether to say everything that I want to say about the amendments and the clause in one go, or to do so in small bits. I might sometimes give the impression of talking at length for the sake of it, but there are occasions when there is genuinely a fair amount to say. It is entirely in the hands of hon. Members as to whether they hear me out or go out and get a cup of coffee. I do not mind. 
There is another point worth making by way of introduction. Some Government Members helped me out when they talked about areas north of Watford, explaining where they were and what the issues were. It might be helpful on this occasion if I put my contribution into some sort of context. I hasten to add that I am probably speaking far more as a constituency  Member of Parliament than as one of the usual channels. In fact, I am probably not speaking as one of the usual channels. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) often points out when he disagrees with me, I am probably not speaking even on behalf of my party, but I am at least, I think, speaking on behalf of the overwhelming majority of the 70,000 people whom I represent. 
My constituency is part of God's own county of Middlesex, as I said earlier. When the Greater London council area was debated and set up, there was to be one more borough than there is, which was to be based on my constituency. It was before my time, but a huge row broke out because, although we are certainly proud to be people from Middlesex, we see ourselves as having nothing in common with London or Greater London—call it what you will. A battle was fought to make it clear that we should not be part of Greater London and that battle was won, although some people think that my constituency is an extension of suburban London. Many arguments will be advanced as to whether control in respect of rail services for Greater London ought to extend to the whole commuting territory, and that is at the heart of the contribution that I want to make. We are wholly outside London but we are slap-bang next door to it; we share a big boundary with it. 
There is another difficulty. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster suggests alternatives in relation to Transport for London's sphere of influence. One of his options is the area within the M25, to which I say, ''God forbid'', because the whole of my constituency is within the M25. We most certainly want no part of what is suggested in the Bill. We were deliberately left out of London, and the last thing that any of us wants is to come back within that sphere of control. I will advance some arguments about what might be done in respect of integrated transport, but one of them is not to put us under any sort of control of anyone in Greater London. There are those of us who could advance arguments against the current Mayor and the current system, but that is not the point. It does not matter what is set up. A wholly Conservative dictatorship could be running Greater London. I would still want no part of it as far as this measure goes. 
That is the background. On the proposals and arguments to extend Transport for London's sphere of influence, that is wrong in principle. I shall come on to Transport for London's views, because they are also included. There are those who think that it would be a good idea, at least in my part of the area immediately next to London, to extend some input into the rail services. I cannot speak for any other of London's neighbours, but I can speak for the people in my area, and such an idea shows a total misunderstanding of the issues. 
Transport for London sees the proposal as an opportunity to do some good for people in Greater London. I do not blame Transport for London for that—it is what it is there for—but it assumes that, because it speaks for places such as Twickenham and Richmond, which are part of the commuting suburbs,  its influence can be extended. These tiny minds, without any understanding of what is over the London boundary, think that that area must be the same and that, if only they could extend their influence a bit, that would make life better. It may make life better for people in Greater London, but I am elected to represent not their interests, but those of the people of my constituency. Not many of my constituents commute into London; more people commute into my constituency than commute out of it. If we want to pursue arguments about the control of Transport for London being extended outside the boundaries, and about the convenience of commuters, perhaps we should suggest that we take over Transport for London—how would it feel about that? 
The significance of my constituency in this argument is that we look for employment more towards Heathrow airport—as the Minister will say in due course, it was not likely to be long before I mentioned that—than we do towards central London. Someone will undoubtedly point out in a moment that Heathrow airport is in Greater London, so perhaps I have shot myself in the foot. However, that is not the point. We are a group of people who are determined to keep our independence from London and who do not believe that we will benefit from such an extension of powers. 
If people in the Committee and elsewhere cannot accept my argument that it is wrong in principle to extend the interests of Transport for London beyond the Greater London boundary, they must join a debate about how far beyond that boundary those interests should extend. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster offered several suggestions: not extending at all, which is the suggestion that I agree with, extending for 5 miles, or extending as far as the M25. If he wants me to vote for the latter suggestion, he will have to do an awful lot more persuading. 
The question of how far the extension should go is an interesting one. I came into the Committee a minute late, and heard some mention of places such as Birmingham. It seems that, as the Bill stands, the limits could be extended anywhere. I decided that I would not join what might become a spurious debate because I can readily accept that Transport for London does not want to run services as far as Manchester. However, I made it my business to ask Transport for London how far out it wanted to have some influence. 
The response that I received was fascinating. So that, in due course, I am not accused by Transport for London of getting it wrong, I note that I met one of its senior executives on 19 October to ask that very question. The answer that I received was that Transport for London wants to extend its influence or control—whichever way one looks at it—to where it can turn a train round. I asked what that meant and was told that it meant, ''As far as we send a train to bring it back again.'' I asked what it meant in my constituency, and was told that, on the Shepperton line, that meant as far as Shepperton, which was no great surprise because the line stops there, so it would be difficult to go any further. In other words,  Transport for London wants to take over control of the whole of one of the lines in my constituency—not just part of it. 
I then asked how far Transport for London would want to go on the other line, and was told, ''We want to go as far as Staines, because that is where we will turn trains round.'' That line goes to Windsor or Reading, and my impression is that the trains that go through Staines turn round at both Reading and Windsor. 
From my questioning of Transport for London, I concluded that it had an agenda that it was not prepared to own up to—it would turn trains round where it fancied doing so, or where it suited it to do so, rather than where it suited my constituents. Not once was I told that it would do that for the benefit of my constituents—[Interruption.] There is a map coming for the Minister; he will find that what I am saying is correct. The line from Staines really does go as far as Windsor and as far as Reading, unless the Government have plans to close those routes.

Tony McNulty: Have you met Martin Salter?

David Wilshire: Yes. Obviously one of the hon. Members for Reading has also had a go about that issue.
I then asked myself what the significance was of turning the train round at Staines. Transport for London could have turned the train round at Feltham, which is in London, or at Ashford, which is not. I became suspicious at that point, because I realised that Transport for London was seeking to gain control of the rail network in the whole of my constituency. I then decided that I needed to look at what the Mayor of London had been saying about his great empire. Surprise, surprise, I discovered that what was going on was not Transport for London wanting to improve rail services. It is probably part and parcel of a land and power grab by the Mayor, wanting to use TFL to get control of the rail network in the Spelthorne constituency and to say, ''We might as well go back to the original Maude report, which suggested having another London borough.'' The Mayor actually said that. 
The fact that I feel strongly about it, and am determined to resist it at all cost, is partly because of the rail services, partly because of my constituency and partly because of the power-crazed approach of Greater London. I would say the same things about what the Mayor appears to be up to if he were a Conservative trying to get his grubby little hands on my constituency. We do not want any part of that. 
Taking Transport for London at its word, the Committee needs to consider what TFL intends to do if it gets some input, which is really control. I asked TFL what it imagined it would do to the railways in my constituency and presumably elsewhere if the Bill went through unamended. In reply, it said a number of interesting things. It said: ''This is what we really want  to do. We want to get control of the fares.'' Transport for London wishes to determine the fares that my constituents will pay.

Tom Harris: I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's conspiracy theories. I expect to hear the phrase ''black helicopters'' at any minute. For the sake of clarification, can he name the individual from Transport for London who is giving him so much information? It would be very useful for the rest of the Committee to double-check his source.

David Wilshire: Yes, of course. It is Mr. Peter Field, who was in charge of South West Trains and is now one of the senior people responsible for the development of Transport for London rail services in constituencies such as mine. I was trying to shield him from being got at by people such as the hon. Gentleman. There is nothing secret about it. I did my level best to go to the correct source—I was not just chatting to a ticket collector on my way home—the official, authoritative voice of Transport for London. It was agreed that what was said to me was on the record, which is why I have a note of it. It was a question of what Transport for London wanted to do: to get control of the fare structure and the timetables and insert its priorities.

Greg Knight: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of what he said is contained in a document issued on notepaper headed ''Transport for London'' with the words ''Mayor of London'' on the bottom? Paragraph 3,on the ability to set fare levels for rail services, states:
 ''In order to harmonise fares across transport services and zones, it will be necessary to change fare levels on National Rail and bring them in line with Travelcard and Oyster. To do this the Mayor will need to have the ability to set the fares for all transport modes in London.''

David Wilshire: Yes. However, the document states ''in London''. My point is about outside London. The source is not only Mr. Peter Field but whoever wrote the document from which my right hon. Friend quotes.
I was told that TFL also wants to gain control of decisions on investment priorities. At present, we can conduct negotiations with South West Trains, Network Rail and any other organisations that the Government leave in existence, and decide what should be spent at Windsor, for example, or at Egham or Staines and so on, until we get to Greater London. I have no confidence whatever in Transport for London giving any consideration to the bits round the edge when it comes to its priorities for investment. I can envisage the money currently allocated by South West Trains for the platforms at Staines, or whatever else it has in mind, being hijacked by another scheme, be it the bid for the Olympics or something else. When I asked how the Government are going to fund the improvements, one answer was from fares. I am sorry, but I do not see why my constituents should be expected to pay extra fares on their railways only for somebody to decide to spend the money somewhere  else rather than those who pay receiving the benefits. I am against the proposal on the basis of the investment priorities.

Eleanor Laing: Would my hon. Friend go even further and say that on this issue there is what is fashionably called a democratic deficit? Our constituents depend on transport in, to and from London, but they do not have a vote to cast in the election for the Mayor of London, so why should the Mayor and Transport for London spend any money benefiting those outwith Greater London when they will gain no electoral benefit from it? Forgive me if that is cynical, but it is true.

David Wilshire: I could not have put it better myself; that is exactly right. I was going to talk about accountability later, but my hon. Friend has put me on this course—I nearly said down this track, but perhaps I should not under the circumstances. I shall give an example of how true her point is.
Perhaps in the name of accountability, the Government decided that there should be a police authority for London. On balance, I agreed with them that instead of responsibility falling to the Home Secretary, there should be a police authority of elected people. Because the Metropolitan Police district had historically always included the whole of the county of Middlesex, my constituents were policed by the Metropolitan police. The moment that there was to be accountability to the London assembly, the issue arose of how those of us outside Greater London would have any input into the accountability to the general public of the Metropolitan police. 
When we raised the question with the then Home Secretary, he put it to us that there were probably two choices: we could either join London and be part of the democratic process in London, or my constituency and others around the edge of London could be policed by somebody else. It will come as no surprise to you, Mr. Amess, that we chose to be policed by Surrey police, which raises a certain amount of difficulty when I protest that we are not Surrey. However, we would far rather be policed by the aliens from Surrey than by aliens from Greater London. 
That was the view that we took, and we will take it again in discussions about accountability of the railways. Of course there must be an input, and there are amendments to another clause about what consultation should take place, which I shall pursue later. There is precedent for these issues of accountability, and one of the options appears to be putting places like mine into London for a number of purposes, of which accountability is one. All I would say is that we do not want any part of it. The way to solve the accountability argument is to have the debate about how people in Greater London want accountability for their rail services and leave us to decide how we want accountability for rail services that have got nothing to do with Transport for London. 
As far as I am concerned the employment profile of my constituency is such that anything that may undermine the success and prosperity of Heathrow airport automatically threatens the jobs of my constituents and the house prices that people have had to pay. The last thing that they want is for their houses to drop in value because Heathrow is no longer the success that it is currently. That is particularly relevant because when I spoke to Transport for London, I asked it what its view would be about investing in air track if it got control of the rail services in my constituency. 
For those who are not familiar with air track, it is the proposal to do for the south of Heathrow what the Heathrow express did for the north. It would give a discrete, direct express service to the south of the airport from Staines, through my constituency. It could then go on to the south coast, Waterloo or anywhere else south of the airport. The reply I received took my breath away. I was told, ''We're not really interested in air track. It would be built outside London and it has nothing to do with commuting passengers.'' 
We have had an attack on the Gatwick express, and on the Heathrow express, and now I have been told that Transport for London could not care less whether air track is built because it is not its passenger priority. It is my constituents' priority. Anything that would stand in the way of improving surface access to Heathrow by public transport is something we are not best pleased with. One has only to consider the state of the M25, and the state of air quality, to see that. Here is something that the Strategic Rail Authority, BAA and others were almost ready to do until a load of changes came about. We are now told that it is to go right down to the bottom of the list of priorities because it does not fit with those of London. 
In case the Minister is tempted to say that I am being totally negative and attacking anything he might suggest—he is too nice a man to say such things, but he will think them—there is an alternative. I am perfectly willing to join a debate about a better way of running railways in the south-east than the current one. My  constituents are prepared to join such a debate, but we are not prepared to be handed over to the Mayor of London and Transport for London. 
If the case for the service delivery of rail services to the south-east is better made in a different way, why do the Government not set up some sort of independent rail company? I shall not go into the argument of whether it should be the private sector or the public sector. I could, but that is not the point I want to make. If the view is that there should be a larger area, the Government should set up something special and independent with accountability right the way across, rather than handing the matter over to Transport for London and the Mayor. The Minister can argue for the service benefits if he wants to, but he will not persuade me that the Mayor of London has to get his grubby little hands on my railways.

Tony McNulty: My contribution will be in the same vein, in the sense that this is the first time we have introduced the notion of London's role in the new rail structure. My comments will go ever so slightly further than the amendment, with your permission, Mr. Amess.
I would like to welcome everyone back and say happy new year to those who were not here this morning, which clearly includes Plaid Cymru again. I hope that we have that nice blend that we had this morning—I fear we shall not—of alacrity and scrutiny. Things should be scrutinised well, but with a degree of alacrity. That is not a dig at the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire)—the matters are important, and this is the first real opportunity we have had to debate them in any substantial way. I was going to use the phrase of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) about intellectual rigour, in the sense that on Second Reading we certainly did not have a real in-depth discussion of the London aspects of the Bill with any degree of rigour, intellectual or otherwise. For those who do not know, I remind the Committee that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster prays in aid the hon. Member for South Suffolk, which is Suffolk in East Anglia, not Southwark as in south London. He is not trying to pass off the hon. Gentleman as a London Member. The comments made by the shadow spokesperson on Second Reading were, as I said at length back then, quite fatuous, showing a complete lack of regard for and experience of London and its rail network, where we start from with transport in London—the Greater London Authority Act 1999—and the fact that heavy rail was not part of that Act. 
I entirely and readily accept the honesty and sincerity of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Spelthorne, including his honesty in saying, ''Hands off my railways, whether you are Conservative, Tory, Labour or anything else.'' Conservative and Tory are the same thing, I know that.

David Wilshire: Are they?

Tony McNulty: Well, they are not actually, if the hon. Gentleman wants to go into a history lesson about it, but we will pass over that. I am not going to go into Tory Ireland and vagabonds, thieves and scavengers as the root of ''Tory'', so we will pass over that.
The hon. Gentleman's point has a particular Spelthorne dimension. He is profoundly wrong, but I accept the sincerity from where he starts. In a legislative context, we start by enabling and no more at this stage. There is still a lot of thought, reflection and work to be done. There is a clear gap in the Mayor's and Transport for London's powers to be filled by heavy rail. I am not surreptitiously attacking the 1999 Act. I had the great privilege of spending about three months of my early parliamentary life on it. It was enormous fun and a wonderful introduction to all things parliamentary, including the parliamentary ''Call My Bluff'' word-game process we go through with legislative scrutiny in Committee. It was right and proper at that time not to throw heavy rail into the mix that finally emerged as the democratic settlement for London, partly for the many reasons that hon. Members have outlined. 
The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster is right: some 70 per cent. of rail journeys start or finish in London. So, if we accept the notion momentarily for the purpose of debate that the heavy rail network is an important dimension to Londoners as well as the wider London and south-east commuter network, how do we get to the stage where Transport for London has a greater say and a clearer role in heavy rail? It is essential to achieving a greater level of transport integration in London. How do we fit that in with the notion that the London and south-east commuter network should not conveniently stop at particular boundaries, which is the reason why I object to the amendments? 
We deliberately said to TFL in the July White Paper that the process will need to be ongoing and evolving. The Bill deliberately does not say in enormous detail how TFL will have a role in the London and south-east commuter network. It does not, again quite deliberately, define boundaries, so I understand the comments that, if we blink, TFL will somehow become responsible for the Oldham loop and all rail services throughout the west midlands. It is not true, but I understand how people start from that perspective. We have captured the process in legislation by defining the services in which TFL can and cannot be involved. 
If one pursued the journey—no pun intended—in the direction that the hon. Member for Spelthorne hinted, one obvious place to start would be effectively to reinvent Network SouthEast. It has some logic, capturing some—not all—of the commuter traffic in and out of London. 
On the question of giving TFL a greater role because we think it needs it to integrate public transport all the more readily in a London context, is re-establishing Network SouthEast the answer? Clearly from our perspective it is not. Whatever influence the Mayor may or may not have over South Eastern Trains, South West Trains, Southern Trains and some of the  other commuter services around London, there is probably an imbalance. That is not a direction in which we seek to go. 
The London Transport Users Committee has some weird boundaries that go far beyond even the suggestions offered by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster. They are really quite skewed and go all the way up to Bedford in one direction, Bicester in another, and to the south encompass Gatwick airport. Of course the lovely Spelthorne is entirely within the LTUC boundaries, given that it is adjacent to London. That is another obvious place to start. Again we need to look at that and reflect on it. 
The hon. Member for Spelthorne was broadly right. Are there discrete services within London? Clearly there are, but not many in terms of heavy rail. Most of them stop outside the GLA boundaries. About the closest we get to an almost discrete commuter service in London—our discussions with the Mayor will consider this—are the various Siverlink services, most of which are in London, save for three to five miles through my constituency up to Watford Junction. All but that last little bit is within the GLA area. We have just renewed the franchise on that for two years. During those two years we will look at how that might be the template for TFL's future role. 
I will happily provide the maps that TFL gave me of the area it is thinking about if we go in this direction. Yes, it still includes Spelthorne, but it is much narrower than the LTUC boundaries. At various stages it is either contiguous with or close to contiguous with the GLA boundaries. It has a red line around London. In its northern extremities it probably comes just north of Welwyn. It would include St. Albans, Watford, Croxley Green and Amersham. Much of the transport provided in the constituency of the hon. Member for Epping Forest is London-based. Perhaps we should look for more money from her for Epping station and the bits of the Central line that go out there. I do not know whether there is more than one station in her constituency, if indeed Epping station is within it. I do not know the geography sufficiently well. 
We have these untidy boundaries. We rightly start from the premise that some five or six years on from TFL and the GLA coming into existence, to get to where we want to get to in terms of a fully integrated public transport system in London it is worth at the very least looking at heavy rail with all the difficulties of those commuter lines going in and out of London. I am closer to being persuaded on the TFL boundaries—what they call the minimal operational London region inner suburban—than by anything else. 
To suggest the M25 is, with the greatest respect, nonsense. It is as arbitrary as any line one can draw. It was not drawn with any notion of administrative or  political convenience in any way. If one looks in detail at a map it does not work with the commuter services in any sort of way. We could take an arbitrary route, which, given all the confusions and complexities that we already have in London to reflect where the PTEs are at present, which is 25 miles beyond the borders. That also draws a strange map round London in how it dovetails with commuter-land. 
I emphasise that this is a matter for subsequent debate. Even if the Bill secures Royal Assent, we are not handing over as a land grab—or whatever else it may be called—that map, any of the suggestions of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster or any other variation, such as the map going to, in extremis, the east coast main line, the west coast main line, et al, simply because they start in London. With the exception of some details that I want to come on to, the Bill is about enabling that process at least to start. We start from the premise that it is worth reflecting on that gap in terms of a heavy rail responsibility for Transport for London.

Greg Knight: First, the Minister referred to the maps that Transport for London supplied him with and said that he would let the Committee see them. Presumably he also received some correspondence or briefing from Transport for London with the map. Is he willing to share that with us as well before Report so that we can see whether some of the fears of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne are misplaced or whether he has some basis for expressing those concerns?
Secondly, the Minister referred to the clause as being enabling. When the Government have formed a view about what they are prepared to enable, what consultation does the Minister envisage taking place with Members of Parliament, either collectively or involving those Members who represent the seats affected?

Tony McNulty: TFL might have sought to brief me, but I do not get briefed by outside third parties. There have been discussions with TFL on the issue, as there have been with the Scottish Executive, the National Assembly for Wales and a range of other interested parties. So, from my perspective, there is no corresponding correspondence—if that is not a tautology—but submissions have been made by TFL to the Department in this context. If they are in the public domain, I will happily provide the Committee with them. I suspect that, whether they are in the public domain or not, they are FOI-ed, if I can coin a new verb. So, if I can provide those submissions, I will.
On the second point, whichever direction we go in will ultimately be the subject of a memorandum of understanding between TFL and the Government. Before we get to that stage, which is some way off—perhaps notwithstanding the example that I gave of the Silverlink services, which may come on stream before that—there will be extensive consultation with all interested parties. If I have anything to do with it, that consultation will include MPs, both those affected and more generally because, after all, the issue is the use of London's rail network. Even though it is in the main about parts of the commuter network of London  and the south-east, that impacts, as hon. Members have suggested, on the wider efficacy and efficiency of the London and south-east transport system and, by definition, many of the other lines coming into and out of London that are not defined as simply being commuter services. So, I will try to make sure that consultation with MPs, as well as with everyone else, is as wide as possible. 
That is the end game—a memorandum of understanding between TFL and the Government about the direction in which they can go. So, what does the clause do at this stage? It defines what the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster sought to redefine—what London means in this case. It means that TFL will be able to buy additional services, invest in stations, provide bus substitution services, which it does already, and be consulted more readily on franchises in the area that we determine. That is important because that is all it does for now. I emphasise that, having considered and consulted on the issue, the end game is how to plug a gap in terms of integrated transport, in that TFL has total control of buses, the tube and everything else inside London, as well as wider traffic management duties, but it does not have any significant input into commuter services that clearly have an impact on London. 
In all honesty, therefore, it is not a land grab. I carefully followed some of the arguments of the hon. Member for Spelthorne. He might not like it, but it would be entirely appropriate for TFL to say to him, ''Actually, air track's nothing to do with us, guv, and we're not terribly interested in it.'' In the wider context, should the transport authority for London be interested in how the airports in London and the south-east are linked together and whether they are linked with public transport? Of course it should, but while it would have some interest in a link from somewhere outside London to Heathrow, it would not have a direct responsibility or interest, and neither should it. 
The Gatwick Express has been a relative success. We are working on a case-by-case basis to develop a route utilisation strategy that will optimise the existing capacity of each of the lines. It is true that usage on the Brighton commuter line has increased by some 70-plus per cent. over the past three or four years. How that interleaves with the Gatwick Express in a limited capacity must be worth considering. I do not yet know how that will be addressed by the utilisation strategy, but it should at least be considered in some detail. 
So, with the best will in the world, we cannot accept a restriction to ''services within Greater London'' or 
''within Greater London and an area no further than five miles from the border with Greater London'', 
or any arbitrary cut-off point, because that will not configure nicely and neatly with some of the commuter lines. The same applies to the M25 and the other matters in the amendments. 
Nobody can consider that matter with any seriousness without bumping into the very inconvenient but factual notion that commuter services in London go beyond GLA boundaries. How can we come up with a compromise between the obvious notion of TFL having control or influence over matters outside the GLA boundary, the democratic deficit, which we will come on to, and how those who use the services from outside London can provide input? That subject arises very quickly if one begins with the premise that TFL having a greater role in heavy rail is a good starting point for London and the commuters of the south-east. 
In the smaller context of the amendments, we do not accept the proposed boundary changes. I urge colleagues to go back to the discussion in the White Paper about how TFL's role fits into the broader context. A working group has already been established in the Department. It includes the Strategic Rail Authority, the train operating companies and TFL, and considers where we go next with such discussions. 
I emphasise that no final decisions have been taken on the scope of the Mayor's responsibilities. It is still early days on that, but the London working group is considering the next phase and matters such as rationalising fare structures and ticketing technology, travelcard fares going further, the greater role of discrete services in London, the ability to buy additional services, the possibility of specifying service levels directly and, importantly, taking revenue risks on services within the GLA's boundaries. The discussion is about TFL's role within the GLA boundary and discrete services there, and a potential role on the rail network in an area slightly larger than the GLA area; it must be slightly larger, because of the accidents of history and settlements that have prevailed around London in years past. Before the hon. Member for Spelthorne rushes to speak, let me say that I am not describing Spelthorne or Staines, God forbid, as an accident of history. It is just that the way in which things have developed around London has not been entirely convenient for the bureaucrats, politicians and planners. 
Our underlying emphasis—I thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Amess—is TFL. In the interests of Londoners and those beyond London's boundaries in terms of commuter services—services not just for commuters—we need to start to look at how to integrate heavy rail within all the other public transport on offer in the GLA area. That necessarily leads to the next point about the GLA boundaries. In  that context, I ask the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, who is, of course, half a Middlesex Member himself, to seek leave to withdraw his amendment.

David Amess: Order. Before I call Mr. Field, I advise the Committee that I am minded not to have a clause stand part debate because I feel that the issues have been well aired.

David Wilshire: Before my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster makes his winding-up speech, there are a couple of points that require a little more comment than an intervention would have made possible. First, I can go along to a great extent with some of the things that the Minister says in advancing the argument for co-ordination of heavy rail services around the London area. I can willingly join in a discussion about that, but saying simply that co-ordination is a good idea in no way offers any sort of argument as to why that co-ordination has to be controlled by Transport for London. It is but one of many options. To simply say that co-ordination is necessary and a good idea—a view that I buy into—does not answer the argument about giving the Mayor of London, whoever he may be, and the GLA any extra power for themselves. That is not the way to do it, as I tried to indicate. I do not buy into the conclusions that the Minister reaches from a starting point with which I have some sympathy.
The Minister either did not understand or is unaware of the issues regarding air track. To say ''Ah well, it's not in London and therefore it's not surprising that Transport for London has not got involved,'' misses two points. The reason why Transport for London does not want to get involved is that its priority is commuting passengers. That underlines the point that I was making about the priorities being wrong for people on the edge of London. The only thing that will drive Transport for London's decisions on investment, timetables and fares will be the commuters going to and from work, and places such as Heathrow and Gatwick airports can go hang. That really suggests that Transport for London is not the right body to co-ordinate things. 
The other thing that concerns me about the argument on air track is that the Minister seems not to have caught up with the idea—perhaps he has forgotten about it—that the Mayor of London wants to slap congestion charging on private vehicles going to Heathrow so that people use public transport. How is it reasonable to contemplate trying to get cars out of Heathrow if the Minister says ''It's not surprising that Transport for London doesn't want to be bothered with air track'' and the Mayor of London will not even get involved in building public transport to make it possible for people from south of the airport to leave their cars behind? The Minister did not deal adequately with that issue.

Mark Field: We have had a full debate on this matter. I understand the concerns that the Minister has expressed about the need for co-ordination and co-operation between the Secretary of State for Transport and the Mayor of London, but I have great concerns that there is a large and important democratic deficit. We will discuss that matter further when we consider clause 17, in respect of proposing the membership of this new Transport for London including areas outside London.
The Minister was right to stress that the London Transport Users' Committee, which we will discuss in respect of schedule 6, currently extends well outside London, but as he rightly said, places such as Bedford and Bicester are on large commuter lines; Bedford is on Thameslink and Bicester is on the line that comes through to Marylebone station. The key question, however, which I raised almost in my first sentence—it was several hours ago, but not several hours of debate, thank goodness—is for whose benefit our railways should be run. 
We have a grave concern that was reflected in discussion of earlier clauses this morning and made clear by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley: lack of accountability and far more centralisation of powers. Many people in London feel concerned about that centralisation, and I suspect that many in the home counties, whose railway services would be determined by Transport for London and therefore, by implication, by the Mayor of London, feel even more concerned about it. 
We have had a useful debate, and I thank the Minister for making suggestions in relation to amendments Nos. 35 and 36. I entirely understand that we are already concerned about one set of arbitrary boundaries, so we should not necessarily position ourselves to create another set, but there are grave concerns none the less. The issue will resonate strongly in many areas outside London, and there may be significant revenue implications both in the longer term in relation to council tax and in the immediate term in relation to fares. Many commuters from places as far-flung as Luton, Windsor and places in Surrey will feel that they have no say in those matters, because  of the democratic deficit to which I referred. Accordingly, I should like to press amendment No. 34, but I shall not seek to press the other amendments. 
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 12.

Question accordingly negatived. 
Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 - Relaxation of contractual restrictions on Transport for London

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mark Field: The clause deals with financial matters and the relaxation of contractual restrictions on Transport for London. The question that arises in my mind is: how wise is it that those restrictions should be relaxed? I remind the Minister that TFL's five-year investment programme addressed several issues, including buses in particular. The financial losses have been colossal and I want to know who will ultimately pay the bill. Most people who use buses in London probably take the view that services have improved. As an irregular bus user, I do not deny that, but it has been at an enormous cost—about £500 million has been lost in the current financial year and that is likely to rise to losses of £1 billion in 2007-08.
The congestion charge also comes under the auspices of Transport for London. In February 2003 when the central congestion charge scheme was set up, it was envisaged that it would raise about £200 million a year, which would be reinvested in buses and other transport improvements, but, at best, it has raised only about £65 million a year. It is small wonder that there is a proposal for a 60 per cent. increase in the daily charge, from £5 to £8, which may be introduced in the next 12 months. Many small businesses, especially in central London, have suffered as a result of the charge, but above all it has failed to bring in the relevant  amount of money. Many Londoners have concerns about the notion of contractual restrictions on TFL being relaxed. 
Prudential borrowing was much vaunted. It has allowed £2.9 billion to be borrowed, effectively on the back of council tax payers, for an undefined period. I welcome the fact that that borrowing will allow the East London line to be built, as without it there is little chance of regeneration in east London or of the Olympic bid having any realistic chance of success. However, that is notional prudential borrowing—not Government expenditure but borrowing on the back of the goodwill of Londoners for Transport for London. That raises the question whether it is right that TFL and, by extension, Mr. Livingstone, should be given such enormous potential increases in their powers. As a London Member, the Minister does not need reminding of their record on industrial relations. 
I referred earlier to the latest RMT deals. RMT members now have 15 rest days a year and 29 days of annual leave—it is 52 days in total when the bank holidays are included—and a 35-hour working week. They earn from £19,000 a year for a station assistant to £33,000 for a station supervisor. Likewise, Transport for London has put into place a separate deal for tube drivers that will ensure that they earn £33,000 a year for a 35-hour working week with 43 days' holiday a year. That comes not just at a long-term cost but at an immediate cost for fare payers, people who are living in London or who have to commute from outside the capital. 
Bus fares are set to rise by 20 per cent. Tube fares have risen by 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. on top of the usual increase— an inflation-busting increase. Silverlink fares, of which the Minister's constituents in Harrow and Wealdstone will be well aware, have gone up by between 4 per cent. and 7.2 per cent., depending on which stop on the line they use, and there have been increases of well over the rate of inflation on the Chiltern and other lines into central London. 
That underlines the concern that many of us feel about the notion of relaxing contractual restrictions on TFL. I hope that the Minister will have at least some input on the matter. I appreciate that in trying to regularise the arrangements there is some benefit in giving TFL additional powers, but, until TFL has shown that it can put its house in order in many of the areas over which it already has authority, many Conservative Members have grave concerns about those powers being extended.

Tony McNulty: If I were an ungenerous person, which I am not, I would say that, while I appreciate your laxity, Mr. Amess, in deciding that our discussion of the previous group of amendments was broad enough to include a stand part debate, allowing an interesting but irrelevant Second Reading contribution on a clause stand part debate is probably stretching things a bit too far. However, that would be seen as slightly challenging to the Chair and I do not seek to do that. Although interesting, nothing that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster has just said had any connection with the clause.
Clearly, if we are, in the wake of the previous debate, moving on from that and trying to work out what the role of TFL should be in terms of heavy rail, those restrictions need to be relaxed and that is what we intend in the clause. However, we are profoundly not saying that for London and the south-east the Secretary of State can no longer be bothered to take a national strategic role because we will give it to Ken Livingstone or TFL. We must lift the restrictions as outlined in section 201 of the principal Act—the 1999 Act—and, at the same time, prohibit TFL from going its own sweet way and doing whatever it wants to do with the assorted franchises in London, unless with the agreement of the Secretary of State. 
That is not unlike the position that we spoke of this morning in respect of PTEs, with the one distinction, of course: TFL was never a co-signatory to franchise rights. We are not going from section 201 of the principal Act to a blank cheque and a free-for-all for TFL. We must in law lift the restrictions on it operating with national rail franchisees, but in such a way—this is what the clause does—that it needs to discuss with the Secretary of State what direction it can go in terms of national rail and to get the permission of the Secretary of State. The restrictions are being lifted, but will be replaced with a prohibition—the permission of the Secretary of State. 
Many of the points that people make about TFL having a free-for-all in the entire network used by commuters in London and the south-east are well made. However, if we are to move any way along the policy development that we seek to get heavy rail into the equation of what TFL provides, with the caveats about GLA borders, we need to lift the restriction, in the context of a full discussion with and permission from the Secretary of State for TFL to go down that road and to become more involved in national rail. The clause is a little contradictory, but it must be in place, not least to start to deal with some of the wider problems to which hon. Members have referred in respect of the broader commuter network. 
Even if Opposition Members do not agree with the public policy principle of getting TFL more involved in heavy rail, they should heartily welcome the clause before us, of all the clauses that cover London, for restoring the strategic dimension to London and the south-east commuter network and for allowing the restriction to be lifted, but only in the context of the permission of the Secretary of State. Rather than challenging the provision, they should broadly welcome it and I commend it to the Committee.

David Amess: Order. I need no assistance from anyone other than the Clerk in chairing the Committee. If I decide that something is out of order, I shall make that clear.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 4.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 - Membership of Transport for London

Mark Field: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in page 16, line 6, leave out 'two' and insert 'four'.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments:
No. 40, in page 16, line 13, leave out 
 'regional planning body for each' 
and insert 
 'leader of the county council or borough council, whichever is relevant,' 
No. 54, in page 16, line 21, leave out from '(2A)' to end of line 23. 
No. 55, in page 16, line 37, leave out 'regional planning bodies' and insert 
 'leaders of the county council or borough council'.

Mark Field: The clause deals with the membership of Transport for London. At this juncture, these are probing amendments. I am obviously interested to enter a debate on them, which I suspect will be quite broad-ranging. If we can, with your indulgence, Mr. Amess, discuss these matters in detail, we may not necessarily need to have a clause stand part debate.
The current arrangements, as the Minister will be aware, enable Transport for London to have an eight to 15-strong board, all appointed by the Mayor, yet the far-reaching proposals to expand the tentacles of Transport for London's powers beyond Greater London surely have an impact on this element. I understand that that is part of what the Government have in mind with the initial provisions of clause 17. We hope that four rather than two members might be appointed from beyond the boundaries of Greater London, or that there might be some reference to county councils in the clause. 
I was trying to work out whether any great railway-related songs had made it to the upper echelons of the charts. I think that the very year in which the Minister was born—1958—was the year of ''Last Train to San Fernando''. That is the last one that I could remember. I am sorry to have developed this discussion in such a way that I have given away the Minister's age. I will not do that to the Under-Secretary, other than to say that I am sure she is glad that Elvis Presley is once again at the top of the UK charts. 
Seriously, let me explain one of our great concerns since the demise of much of the agenda for regional government in this country. It relates to the fact that one of the great raisons d'etre for such regional authorities was as a planning authority. It is therefore unarguable that any decisions relating to inter-city services coming into London should be made only in concert with other authorities that have an interest in a given service, in order that the integrity of our inter-city services be properly maintained. It should not be a decision for Transport for London alone. I should be interested to have some idea from the Minister of how he envisages that the democratic deficit to which my hon. Friends the Members for Spelthorne and for Epping Forest have referred can be properly addressed.

John Pugh: The hon. Gentleman just mentioned making decisions in concert, but the amendments endeavour to take out regional planning bodies and put in leaders of the county councils and borough councils. Why is he taking those out? Why does he not leave them in as well?

Mark Field: The problem is that, in a sense, many of the regional authorities have been dead ducks since 4 November and the end of the plan to have fully devolved government in England. Again it goes back to the issue of democratic deficit. Instead of appointed members of a regional planning authority, members elected for a specific purpose, such as leaders of councils, should have more say in this regard.
Equally, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that we envisage Transport for London being put out to the broadest possible membership, which may go some way to addressing his concerns. To add only two members from outside London to a body of eight to 15 members will be insufficient, given the increase in Transport for London's powers beyond the capital's current boundaries. 
National policy makers must meet the demands of London's travelling public. Transport for London has made it clear that an increase in capacity might be needed on some of the routes to which we have referred. We would be keen to ensure that there is better value for money. However, above all, if we are to drive the agenda forward, there must be input from all the areas that will be covered, not simply from central London, for which the current Transport for London appointees will be put in place. 
I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some guidance. It is clear from the clause that the Government are at least alerted to the possibility of a democratic deficit. I hope that he will at least be able to give us an idea of the Government's thinking in this regard. One of the gravest concerns of many people in London, where transport is a major issue, is Transport for London's lack of accountability: it is very much in the hands of the Mayor of London to appoint the board. Where and how will the appointees from outside London be brought in? Will they be appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport or will the process take place in tandem with negotiations with the Mayor of London? At the moment it is something of a mess. I do not criticise the Government for that, as inevitably we are in uncharted waters. The Government have at least recognised that bodies from outside London must have a say in this matter. Our fear is that the increased powers in clause 15 and later will have a significant effect. If these bodies are to have any authority, particularly outside London, important additional appointments must be made from outside our area. 
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne will wish to address this issue, because he has also tabled amendments relating to it. I hope that, once the Minister has had an opportunity to listen to the debate, he will be open-minded enough, if not to take on board some of our amendments, at least to consider them before Report.

David Wilshire: I want to see whether I can be helpful to the Minister on this occasion, because I recognise, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, that the Government have realised that there is an issue here: if Transport for London is to have a controlling input into rail services outside Greater London, how does one deal with  democratic accountability? Therefore, the Government have alerted themselves to the issue and have decided to try to resolve it.
I want to make two points to the Minister about the representation—the two or four members—on which he may care to reflect before Report. In doing so, again, if you will allow me, Mr. Amess, I will use the amendments, because I want to make some technical points and would not want to come back in a stand part debate, even if you were to allow us to do so. 
I realised before Christmas, when I looked at my two amendments, that had I been thinking as clearly as I should have been I would probably have tabled two different amendments. Therefore, like the Government, I was aware of the problem, but was not sure whether I had the right solution to it. I hope that the Government will approach their Bill in the same way. 
The Government say that there should be two members, while my hon. Friend has advanced an argument that there should be more. I agree with him, but that is not the point that I want to pursue now. 
In line 7 on page 16 the Bill says that the two members must ''represent the interests of'' and it goes on to say who. I think that that is wrong. I believe that the two members should represent people, not the interests of people. In other words, they should be elected by people living outside London. At present it is open to the Mayor to say to two people living in the constituency of my hon. Friend, ''I am appointing you to represent the interests of people in Spelthorne'' or Hertfordshire or somewhere else, and I am sure that that is not what the Minister intends. I am sure that he wants those of us outside to have a direct voice from people whom we choose and not from people who have come from somewhere else and are somehow given guardianship of our interests. That is not democratic; to be honest, it is mildly patronising. 
The other point that concerns me about these two members—or is it four?—is that line 13 says: 
 ''Before making an appointment . . . the Mayor must consult''. 
That will not do. Appointment to these two places must be made by the people who have elected those members to represent them on Transport for London. They must not be open to the Mayor's veto; else we have somebody elected by a different group of people for different reasons. People in Greater London vote for the Mayor for their Greater London reasons. They do not vote for a Mayor of London on the basis of what is good for people outside London, nor should they. I have no problem with that. If the two places are there for people to represent people outside Greater London, the decision as to who they are should be in the hands of people from outside Greater London and it should not be for the Mayor to decide after he has consulted. I am entirely with the Minister on the principle that he is trying to achieve, but he has not gone as far as I hoped he would be willing to go to make the democratic accountability crystal clear. I commend those two points to him before Report. 
I want to say something about the regional planning body. It was my misfortune to serve on the Committee considering the first part of the Planning and  Compulsory Purchase Bill, before it came back again and somebody else had another go at it, and I made my views on regional planning policy clear then. Again I accept that certain issues need a regional perspective, if only we could decide what regions are. What I am clear about is that the notion that there is a thing called the south-east region of England is barmy. The idea that my constituents would stand up and sing ''God save the glorious south-east'' as our regional anthem is preposterous. It will not happen, that notion does not exist, and thankfully the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire have put the boot in to save us from having to do it later on—we are eternally grateful to the common sense of the people from up in that part of England who wanted nothing to do with that. 
Even if there is a case for co-ordination over a wider area—this goes back to my point about the need for heavy rail—and a need to consult and look for democratic credentials beyond an area, it is a mystery to me what representatives from the Isle of Wight can contribute to the rail interests of my constituents. It is nutty to say that we should ask people from a huge area. Why on earth we should have to consult representatives from Kent to decide what to do west of London is beyond me. The Government have missed the obvious point that the people who should be consulted are those whose railways are going to be brought into Transport for London's area of control. If the wonderful map that the Minister produces indicates that railways from Staines and Shepperton will be included, the right people to consult are the councils representing the interests of those areas, not those representing the interests of Southampton or Portsmouth. 
As the area of Transport for London's control is extended, if that is what the Government are going to do, the area from which we have to consult will get bigger. There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing special about saying that we will decide now over what area consultation will take place. It will change depending on the nature of Transport for London's responsibilities. 
Whether two, four or however many people should be elected from the areas outside London, they should be chosen by the people outside London, not by the Mayor. Whether consultation should be with a council leader or the whole council is a matter for detailed debate, and I am happy to listen to the Minister on the subject. It would probably be obvious because some areas around Greater London are covered by unitary authorities and some are not. In a unitary case it is obvious who to consult. The question of transport responsibilities can be blurred in two-tier areas, but I am sure that there is a definition of a transport authority. The body that should be consulted is the transport authority for the area affected by the change in control of the railways.

Greg Knight: Perhaps in view of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, I should declare that 30 years ago I co-composed a song called ''The Great Central Line'', which was about the great central railway.  Unfortunately, it was not a hit and was not up to the standard of ''Long Train Running'' by the Doobie Brothers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne raised a number of legitimate concerns, which I hope the Minister will answer in summing up this debate. How does he see the clause working, whether it is unamended or amended as we are proposing? The more that I reflect on the clause, the more that I am concerned about its provisions. As my hon. Friend said, the clause states: 
 ''The Mayor must exercise his powers under this paragraph so as to secure that at least two members of Transport for London are able to represent the interests of the persons living, working and studying in areas outside Greater London that are served by railway passenger services'' 
and so on. 
Does the Minister take that to mean that the Mayor should nominate two additional members, or that two existing members should take on extra responsibilities? The latter would appear to be the case, with the Mayor nominating two people who should focus on the interests of those living outside Greater London. The more that members of the Committee think about that, the more I hope that they will see that it is not at all satisfactory. It is rather like someone saying to the Minister, ''In addition to representing the views of the people of Harrow, you should also represent the views of the people of Spelthorne when a certain issue is debated.'' 
We all know what would happen. We are all here because more people have voted for us than any other candidate in a particular geographical area. If someone is faced with dealing with the interests of those who can vote for them and a body of people that the Mayor of London told them to look after but who cannot vote for them, that person is not going to spend the same amount of time considering the concerns of those people who cannot vote for them anyway, even if they are grateful for what was done. 
I would be interested to hear the Minister explain how he envisages the process working effectively to represent those who will be disfranchised, even if we amend the clause. In the meantime, I would like the Committee to reflect on the amendment, which is fair and reasonable. After all, Greater London has four compass points: north, south, east and west. Surely, therefore, it makes sense to have four people representing those areas and looking after their interests.

John Pugh: I have come round to the view that the Conservatives have put forward: this is a rather puzzling set of clauses. I accept the point that has been made that the Bill would allow the Mayor of London to nominate two people already representing other areas inside London to become the tribunes, as it were, for those outside London. If that is a correct reading of the clause, any consultation would be fairly otiose and redundant because we would be talking about a limited number of people to pick from, whom the  regional planning bodies may not know much about anyway. There is a need for substantial clarification on where the clauses are leading us.

Tony McNulty: This has been a fair and reasonable debate. We must start from the premise that the clause would be necessary if we went down the road of extending TFL's powers beyond the current GLA boundaries. If we did so, there would be a need to get some sort of representative voice from those outside London who would be affected by TFL's control of or influence on services. I think that everyone agrees on that premise.
Wherever one starts from on the question of whether TFL should have its powers extended, if those powers extended beyond GLA boundaries there must be some input of consideration. The only part I do not take to heart much is the last point because when the clause is considered as a whole, it is clear that two out of the 15 referred to must represent people outside London. One can read that in a formal, logical way but, as the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire will know, legalese and logic are often but passing acquaintances. 
I am assured that the clause means that two out of the 15 are there to represent those outside London. That should be seen in the context of a fairly elaborate, prescriptive list in the principal Act—the Greater London Authority Act 1999—of other representations and interests that the Mayor must reflect in the membership.

David Wilshire: Is the Minister willing to put on the record that what he just said means that those two people must be directly elected by a principal council outside the Greater London boundary?

Tony McNulty: It means nothing of the sort. That is not what I said at all. I simply explained what the role of the two must be. An earlier point seemed to suggest that there could be an interpretation suggesting that of the existing 15, two could be nominally appointed as outwith-GLA members. That is not the case in relation to the entire clause.

Mark Field: Does the Minister accept that we need clarification on the matter? The concern is that one or both of the two members could live in Greater London but be, for example, the principal of a further education college at which most of the students lived outside Greater London. That person would therefore qualify as someone who could represent the interests of those studying outside Greater London. Surely it is imperative that both members have as their main home a property outside Greater London, so that they can take on the representative role that is envisaged.

Tony McNulty: I take on board the spirit of that point. Herein lie some of our difficulties. I will start at the beginning. The principal Act says clearly that there should be 15 members of the TFL board. In that context, TFL and Ken Livingstone have said to me, ''Of course we recognise that if our boundaries are to be expanded just for this one function there needs to be a voice from outside Greater London, but there is a  prescriptive list in the 1999 Act about what sort of representation we should have on the board. Is it possible for those two to be additional to, rather than part of, the 15?'' The Mayor is told in schedule 10.2 of the 1999 Act to ensure that
''the members of Transport for London between them have experience in— 
(a) transport (including in particular the impact of transport on business and the environment), 
(b) finance and commerce, 
(c) national and local government, 
(d) the management of organisations, and 
(e) the organisations of trades unions''. 
That is a flavour of the representations that are supposed to be on the board. 
So, the Mayor's side recognises, as I think does everyone here, that if we go down the road of expanding beyond the GLA boundaries, there needs to be a voice for those outside the boundaries. What the Mayor's side is saying—that those two members from outside the GLA should be in addition to the 15 members of the board—is in one sense entirely fair and something that I will reflect on. Given that fair point, I do not think that I can accept that four out of 15 members should represent those beyond the GLA boundaries. 
Starkly put, there are 5.9 million bus and 3 million tube journeys in London every weekday, which is what TFL already provides for. Given the area that we are talking about, this proposal might bring in another 500,000 commuters. Notwithstanding the point made about those communities having a voice above and beyond commuter traffic, four out of 14 members of the board, taking the Mayor out of the equation, is probably a bit excessive considering the populations represented by those from outside the GLA boundaries and those in them. So I suspect that, accidentally or otherwise, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire and the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster are closer to the Livingstone and TFL line than they would perhaps like to be. However, they make a fair point. 
I start from the premise that if we go beyond the GLA boundaries, those outside the boundaries must have some voice. I freely accept that I do not have a monopoly on how to capture that voice. Without being a futurologist, I think I can say clearly that, essentially, those involved would be from the east and the south-east and that we will not be worrying about the south-west or the west or east midlands representatives on TFL. I would be surprised if representatives were not forthcoming from the regional planning bodies who take up many of the transport issues for the two regions. Their representatives are all directly elected county and unitary councillors for their areas. It is a slightly more legitimate form of election than those for South West trains or Southern trains board of directors, if we are talking about a democratic deficit. 
There does need to be that voice. We think that having two distinct outer GLA members representing that voice is right. I take on board the concerns about consultation. That needs to be locked down more readily, but not necessarily in the Bill. However, I do  not claim a monopoly. I am more than happy to reflect on the numbers and the broad positions to which hon. Members have referred, but if I do not have the answer in clause 17 as it stands, I am absolutely clear, with the greatest respect, that none of the amendments offer me the answer either. 
Lawyers usually charge a fortune to say ''without prejudice''. With those words at the top of my imaginary letter to the Committee, I will happily reflect on the real concerns of the Committee, the Mayor and TFL in order to see if we can capture what is necessary—the voice of the regions.

John Pugh: The Minister is saying that there will be two additional members for Transport for London and that they will not necessarily be elected representatives but representative of people in outer London. If that is what he is saying and if that is the thrust of the clause, it ought to be tidied up so that it says so. The problem with wording can easily be addressed. However, by that process are we actually amending the constitution of the GLA or Transport for London? Are there any consequential effects?

Tony McNulty: The clue is in the opening phrase of the clause, which says:
 ''Paragraph 2 of Schedule 10 to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c.29) (membership of Transport for London) is amended as follows.'' 
That should provide the hint that the clause will mean changes to the GLA and TFL. It is not terribly subtle. 
The wording does not need tidying up. The hon. Member for Spelthorne knows that on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill I quite readily apologised for the sometimes sticky and opaque legalese. These words, however, say what we intend to do, which is that two members of the TFL board shall reflect the interests and be representative of those outside London. The issue is about the nature of those members—whether they come through regional planning bodies or are separate. It is also about the nature of the appointment—how much the Mayor has to take on board the concerns of those outside London. I have not spoken to him about it, but I would suggest that a list is submitted by whatever region puts forward a suggestion and that the Mayor chooses from it. 
The representatives will not be directly elected to the board; the existing members are not. They will not be elected representatives of one form or another. Susan Kramer was given a job on the TFL board when she failed so miserably in the first mayoral elections. No one elected her to the board, and I do not remember her complaining about the legitimacy of her position. The issues are the nature of the voice and the numbers—two or four members out of the existing 15, or, as the Mayor and TFL have suggested to me, two in addition to the 15 prescribed in the 1999 Act. 
I must reflect on those elements, because they are genuine concerns. Whether or not one agrees with the caveat that the GLA boundaries should be expanded in the interest of national and commuter rail, we all  start from the premise that there is that voice from the regions if TFL's responsibilities go beyond GLA boundaries. 
I will reflect on the issue with those weasel words of lawyers ''without prejudice'' at the top of my letter, so that I am not committing myself to anything other than reflection with due diligence on the serious points made in Committee and by others, including TFL and the Mayor. The amendment does not offer a way out of or a solution to the matters under discussion, so I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

David Wilshire: I always knew that there was a nice man hiding behind the Minister's exterior. I sense a chink of light. I do not think that the plates are shifting, but we are making a little bit of progress, and I am grateful for that. The Minister said that he wanted to reflect on how he could include the voice of the regions, and I am not trying to reopen the debate on regionalism, but I hope that when he does his thinking he will try to find a way to get the voices of the people who are affected heard. In some cases, it might be the whole region; in other cases, it might not be. In any event, it would be churlish of me not to say that I appreciate that little chink of possible change.

Mark Field: The Minister has been uncharacteristically compromising in this debate, which has been worth while and has dealt with several of our concerns. I initially pointed out that the amendments were probing amendments. I entirely appreciate that they were intended to provoke a debate, and I hope that we will have a little more feedback from the Minister on Report.
It seems clear that the common-sense interpretation of clause 17(2) must be that the two members who are appointed to represent the interests of those who live, work or study outside central London would themselves fit into that category and live, work or study, in any permutation of those three things, outside central London. I hope that when the time comes, in so far as the Minister comes back to us without any major amendments to the clause, the Mayor of London will have had an opportunity to read some of the debate. Given the concerns of those outside London, perhaps he will ensure that more than two members ordinarily resident outside Greater London are appointed to take on this important representative role. 
This has been a worthwhile debate, and I thank the Minister for his understanding and his summing up. With that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 - The Rail Passengers' Council

Greg Knight: I beg to move amendment No. 46, in page 17, line 39, leave out 'Ministers' and insert 'Parliament'.
The purpose of the amendment is to tease out from the Minister the justification for the words used in the Bill. What is wrong with widening the process? The amendment would allow far wider consultation as to who the council members should be, and yet the party or coalition of parties that form the Administration in the Parliament would still have the final say on who was appointed. 
The amendment also mirrors the wording used in the next paragraph. That is an important point. In subsection (2)(c), the Government have deemed that the National Assembly for Wales should appoint a member. My amendment seems fair. It would ensure wider consultation, and it is consistent with the approach in paragraph (c). I hope that the Minister will accept it.

John Pugh: I rise to speak to amendment No. 104.

David Amess: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is straying slightly.

Anne McGuire: I thank the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire for his amendment and for his explanation as to why he thought that it was appropriate to table it. I challenge in the nicest possible way, however, his claim that it would still allow Scottish Ministers to have the final say on any appointment. My understanding is that in fact the appointment would be made by the Scottish Parliament, not Scottish Ministers. I am not sure how that sits with his comment that the amendment would still allow Ministers in Scotland to have the final say on the appointment.

Greg Knight: The point that I was making is that the Scottish Parliament is run either by one particular party or by a coalition of parties. If it is the Parliament that makes the decision, the ruling Administration will effectively decide, but that will ensure the widest possible debate and the decision will be taken not in a smoke-filled Cabinet Committee room, but on the Floor of the Parliament.

Anne McGuire: If the right hon. Gentleman scans the Scottish press any day of the week he will see that the last thing that one can say in Scotland is that anything is either kept hidden or conducted in a smoke-filled room.

Tom Harris: Sadly.

Anne McGuire: I would not necessarily endorse what my hon. Friend says.
Perhaps I can explain to the Committee the rationale behind the clause and why I would respectfully ask the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire to seek leave to withdraw his amendment. I appreciate that, in tabling the amendment, he is  motivated by a desire to create an apparent parity between the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales. Currently, the chairman of the Scottish rail passengers committee and, as such, the member of the Rail Passengers Council, is appointed by Scottish Ministers. It is our view that Scottish Ministers should continue to be the appointing body. We have established these policies in consultation with the Scottish Executive and we are satisfied that that is an appropriate function to be given to Scottish Ministers and that it should be continued in that vein. On that aspect alone, we therefore consider that the amendment is perhaps unnecessary. 
Having the Scottish Parliament make a public appointment would also be unprecedented, as unlike the National Assembly for Wales and the Greater London Authority, the Scottish Parliament is not established to exercise that type of function. That is to do with the way in which the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament have been established within different legal frameworks. 
In addition, this is not an issue of parity between Scotland and Wales. In Wales there is no direct equivalent in law to the Scottish Ministers. The Welsh Assembly Government exercise functions delegated to the First Minister by the National Assembly, but they do not have the same legal status as Scottish Ministers. It is an appropriate function to be given to the Assembly but not to the Scottish Parliament. 
Again, I should like to assure the Committee that we have developed the provisions in consultation with our colleagues in the Welsh Assembly Government and we are satisfied that the power has been given to the correct body. There is a difference in terms of the legal standing and framework under which the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly of Wales operate. 
We understand the motivation of the right hon. Gentleman in as much as he wishes to extend the consultation, but I think I can say without fear of contradiction that, in our experience, both the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive have been diligent in the way that they consult in a great many areas under their responsibility. Given the reassurances about the consultation and the explanation about the different legal frameworks between the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will seek leave to withdraw his amendment.

Greg Knight: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. In essence, she was making a case for diversity. As a Conservative, I am not normally against that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Graham Stringer: I beg to move amendment No. 58, in page 17, line 42, after 'Committee', insert—
'(da) a member of the six English Passenger Transport Authorities, acting jointly;'. 
As my hon. Friend the Minister explained, clause 19 represents the current constitutional settlement in this country. It is about how power is arranged and devolved in part. In Scotland, there is a Parliament, and its Ministers will determine who represents the interests of passengers there. In Wales, there is an elected Assembly, so the Assembly will determine the matter. In London, there is the Greater London authority, so it will have that power. For England, the Secretary of State will determine the chair and appoint up to 12 other members. 
Although that represents the constitutional arrangement in this country, it does not seem fair or right, and there seems to be no necessity to replicate it in the structure of the Rail Passengers Council. I can see that if a parliamentary draftsman or woman is instructed to draw up the constitution of a new Rail Passengers Council, he or she will look at what the arrangements are and come up with the arrangement that we are discussing. However, I do not think that we have to be so restricted in considering the Bill. 
There are six PTAs in England. I have just done a rough, back-of-an-envelope calculation and I think that they represent about one quarter, or probably slightly more, of the population. They are composed of elected councillors. It seems to me that at least one person from those PTAs should be on the RPC to consider the interests of passengers. In many cases, that is why people are elected. I would have no objection if there was more than one such person among the 12, but this is a probing amendment and I should be interested in the Minister's reply as to why the PTAs, which have such an important function in overlooking rail, bus and transport services generally in the great metropolitan areas of this country, should not be represented on the RPC. I think that they should be and I hope that he will consider this small but important amendment.

John Pugh: For a second or two I imagined that I was transported to the Report stage.
I have a lot of sympathy with the amendment. It has been apparent from the debate as it has evolved that PTAs have special interests and worries and there seems to be no convincing argument as to why they should not have special representation. In fact, why that did not occur to the drafters of the Bill I cannot imagine. I can only assume that there is a London-centric bias when people tidy up legislation.

David Clelland: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley. He again draws attention to something of a constitutional dilemma, with the devolution process having been stalled to some extent. It is, as he pointed out and as the Bill makes clear, quite easy for the Government to decide on representatives from Scotland, the National Assembly for Wales and from London, because there are bodies to which the Secretary of State can refer. However, that is not the case for the rest of England. I know that my hon. Friend is reflecting on his position on regional government—perhaps he is having a rethink. Regional government would certainly have resolved some of the problems.
My hon. Friend has drawn attention to an extremely important point. Outside London, the PTAs represent the huge conurbations and big cities in the rest of the country, and therefore are extremely important players when it comes to transport. I entirely agree that the important role that they play ought to be recognised by appointing their representatives to the RPC.

Tony McNulty: However important PTEs are—I concede that they are important, and have been doing so for much of the day—this is a consumer body that represents rail passengers. We have said quite deliberately, and the RPC of old has agreed, that we want to move away from the rigid and frankly not terribly successful model of regional passengers committees to a new, nationally focused commuter and consumer body.

David Clelland: The Minister referred to the fact that PTEs were not representative. The amendment refers to passenger transport authorities, which feature elected representatives of the travelling public.

Tony McNulty: With respect, that is pedantry in the extreme. Of course, I meant PTAs. In rail passenger terms, which is what this is about, the PTAs cover less than 15 per cent. of all rail passenger journeys. If we were talking about a truly reflective and representative  rail passenger body, seven out of 10 members would be from London. It is not simply about reflecting the varying weight and importance of passenger numbers from around the country. As a London MP, I would certainly not advocate that 70 per cent. of the body—the consumer voice for rail passengers—should be from London, which would reflect very mechanistically the importance, in numeric terms if nothing else, of rail passengers.
Clearly, despite what I have said about numbers, rail is important to PTE areas that are governed by elected PTAs, as it is important to the whole country. I know that the RPC is keen to engage with PTEs on the future structure and role of the new RPC. It has already met with Roy Wicks of the PTE group to discuss how the RPC can develop more effective relationships with PTEs and PTAs. I think that the RPC, through Stewart Francis, has written to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley saying that it does not think that the amendment is desirable. In future, rather with the grain of what we are trying to do—get a more effective consumer body—he wants RPC members chosen for their experience and expertise, rather than their geographic location. 
The importance in the context of a previous clause is that, at least in part, that consumer voice should reflect the devolution structures in the new post-SRA rail industry—hence the voice for Scotland, Wales and London,. It is not because London, Scotland or Wales are more important than the PTA areas or the rest of England. The provision reflects the impact of the new structures on consumers and gives them a voice. 
I am sympathetic to my hon. Friend's wish that the new RPC should represent regional and national concerns. From discussions with Stewart Francis and others, I am convinced that it will. I am pleased that they are talking seriously with Ray Wicks and others from the Passenger Transport Executives Group and I am sure that they will happily meet elected members from PTAs. The RPC must speak to PTAs and PTEs and reflect regional and national issues in order to become the effective body that we wish it to be. 
The Newcastle members will be expected to pick up regional issues, including those that concern passengers in the city regions, which largely reflect PTA areas. We also expect members to recognise and represent the full range of rail passenger interests and concerns, irrespective of their regional background. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley will know that the proposals for the internal structure of the new RPC put forward by the chairman provide further assurance that regional issues will be covered, given that each rail franchise area will be covered by RPC front-line staff, who will engage with the full range of regional passenger interests. 
It is not necessary or appropriate to take the mechanistic route to ensure that there is at least one representative of the six PTAs on the new RPC. In one sense, the suggestion itself challenges the validity of doing so: without wishing to sound like the hon. Member for Spelthorne, how can a bona fide PTA  member from the west midlands adequately reflect the regional concerns of Tyne and Wear, Greater Manchester or South or West Yorkshire? 
I repeat that the RPC is essentially a consumer body, designed to represent the views, concerns and interests of all rail passengers. Members are not selected simply on a regional basis, as happened with the old rail passenger committees, nor are they selected because of their directly elected political background. To go down that road would change the nature of the beast—we want to achieve a new, effective voice for rail passengers as consumers—before the new process has started. 
I will get back in touch with Roy Wicks and Stewart Francis to ensure that there is a dialogue and to give my hon. Friend the reassurance that he seeks in terms of PTAs collectively and individually ensuring that their concerns are heard in the new RPC structures. However, I will resist this incredibly mechanistic response.

John Pugh: Subsection (2)(b) allows a member to be appointed by Scottish Ministers and subsection (2)(c) allows a member to be appointed by the National Assembly for Wales. Is the Minister's understanding that that could be an elected representative on those bodies, and that it need not necessarily be someone who is simply a consumer? Is it a correct reading of the clause that there could be a politician from Scotland and from Wales on the body?

Tony McNulty: To be frank, I am not entirely sure, but I hope that I will be enlightened and then I can enlighten the Committee. Judging from the nuances of my reading of the Bill, I hope that that is not the case and that these are not political appointees, certainly not from London. The Bill has left London Transport Users Committee in place because of its unique position in a London context. In the light of what I have just said about PTAs, if, on reflection and with due inspiration, it appears that the Bill allows politicians to take a place on the council, I will resist it. I therefore ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment.

Graham Stringer: On the last point, my hon. Friend is a brave politician in many ways. I know that from the number of times that he has debated the tram system in Greater Manchester with people from Greater Manchester and the north-west. However, he would indeed be brave if he were going to tell Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Assembly whom they should or should not appoint.
This simple amendment has led to a useful debate and may stimulate me to table another amendment on Report. It has several aspects. One is whether, because we have a constitutional arrangement under which there is not a number of separate bodies that represent England, we should assume that the Secretary of State should be responsible for taking all those decisions. My answer to that is that we should not.

John Pugh: Is not the logic of that argument that areas that do not vote for regional government are de facto discriminated against?

Graham Stringer: I do not particularly want to go down that route and do not wish to encourage the hon. Gentleman. No part of England has voted for or, in my opinion, is likely to vote for elected regional assemblies. We are therefore left with the situation in which either the Secretary of State takes the decision, which is the central point of the clause, which deals with who the English representatives on the Rail Passengers Council should be, or we look to some other mechanism.
I would not defend the view that PTAs are the ideal bodies to do that, although they are bodies with an interest in transport. They are not drawn just from the producer side: like elected representatives in virtually any council or elected body in this country, they represent both the consumer side and also, in some cases, the producer side. Some of our quangos can be over-professionalised and miss out on the common sense and common experience of politicians in other areas. I therefore do not completely accept my hon. Friend's argument that politicians could have nothing whatever to say in the context of a consumer group—that is an extreme argument. However, I can see that they might not be the only people to have a say. 
In tabling the amendment, I tried to consider an alternative to the Secretary of State appointing people to the RPC. I accept that there are some arguments against PTAs. One could advance an argument that included county councils as well as the PTAs. All sorts of mechanisms would probably be better than appointment by the Secretary of State and would give better representation. If one accepts that some form of professionalism should be included, that can be provided by the secretariat. 
I would not totally dismiss the argument in favour of regionalism. I know that the vast majority of rail journeys in this country take place in the south-east. However, that does not mean that rail journeys to the Yorkshire dales or in the west midlands, even though they represent a tiny percentage of the rail journeys that take place in England, do not need some form of consumer representation. I believe that my hon. Friend accepted that there was no simple linear relationship between the number of passenger journeys and the representation on the council. What I am saying is that every area of England should be considered and represented in some way. There are very poor and inadequate rail services in many parts of England, which is one reason why the people in those areas should be represented. 
I shall be happy, as ever, to withdraw the amendment, which has provoked some interesting points. In response to the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), who represents the Liberal Democrats, my intention was never to produce something that was symmetric, but to start a debate about how people should be chosen. My view is that they should not be chosen by the Secretary of State. They should not be chosen just on a professional basis: there should be a regional element and even a democratic element in the representation on the Rail Passengers Council. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

John Pugh: I beg to move amendment No. 104, in page 17, line 43, at beginning insert
'not fewer than five and.'. 
The amendment would set a minimum of five members on the council with a maximum of 12, which would thereby establish a balance over the whole council. We have been concerned about the balance and setting a minimum number of members is normal in many walks of life, including company boards, other quangos and a wide range of organisations. 
As it stands, the legislation allows the Secretary of State and the chairman of the council, who is appointed by the Secretary of State, to appoint one or as few as four members, which will skew the balance of the council as a whole and the votes of the representatives of London, Wales and Scotland would count for a lot more if voting took place. I agree that there is no ideal figure, but a minimum figure is desirable. We hope and expect that appointees will be men and women of great experience and considerable independence, who are capable of representing their own areas. Unfortunately, they could be toadies hoping for other quango appointments or superannuated party loyalists. We want the right representation and the wider the representation, the more likely that is. A small council, balanced in the way in which it could be balanced, is not the intention in the Bill and it would not hurt to impose a minimum number as well as a maximum number.

Tony McNulty: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining the point of his amendment and I probably agree, although reluctantly, with the spirit of the amendment. However, it is superfluous because the wording that we have chosen merely replicates the wording in the current legislation for membership of the existing council, except that whereas there should be no more than six additional members on the existing council, there should be no more than 12 on the new council. Perfidious as many of them may have been, that has been the case since 1948. As ever, the rather obtuse but none the less logical what-if speculation from the Liberal Democrat Member may prevail, but it has not done so for almost 60 years and, short of anything changing rapidly in the future, I do not think that it will in future. We have expanded the council from no more than six to no more than 12 to reflect the need for it to be as all-embracing as possible, given its consumer focus, and far more readily able to focus beyond simply the regional dimension. We believe that that is about right.
The Secretary of State will not behave like some gauleiter, to use one of the favourite phrases of the hon. Member for Spelthorne, albeit in the context of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. I shall not provoke the hon. Gentleman to use the word, or we shall get jackboots and gauleiter together, which was a rough description of the terminal 5 inspection  team, but that is by the by. The Secretary of State will not, rather like some gauleiter, simply say ''We'll have him, her, him, her, him, her,'' in the fashion suggested by the hon. Gentleman. The appointments will be properly constituted through the OCPA process, which is clear and transparent. It is not about—it is tedious even to repeat it—sloppy Mickey Mouse politics such as toady this, toady that, political appointment this, that or the other. The Commissioner for Public Appointments is a formidable woman. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has ever met her. To suggest that she is a lackey appointed by the Government to appoint toadies to the various bodies is wrong, and demeans all that we seek to do in politics. Such allegations may be useful fourth-form alliterations for the Liberals, but they do not add to the body politic and party political processes. They are not Secretary of State appointments handed down from above; they are OCPA appointments made through a fundamentally transparent process, with all that that entails. 
We have lifted the words from the original body of law. There was no difficulty in any way, shape or form, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, under the old RPC and we do not envisage any difficulty arising from having to put a minimum in the Bill. However, not least for some of the reasons suggested by members of the Committee, we accept that, for the OCPA to be an effective consumer voice with as broad a representation of rail passengers as possible, there should be no more than 12 additional members. We are comfortable with that; the RPC, old and new in terms of its national dimensions, is comfortable with that. We believe that that is the way forward, and I ask the Committee to resist the ''what if'' speculation in the amendment or I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

John Pugh: I am much relieved to know that gauleiter and patronage are things of the past. It is a great reassurance to all of us.
However, my point was not primarily about the mechanics of making the appointment. I accept that, with new guidelines, there is probably less direct patronage around than ever. The process is more transparent and evident. However, that is not in itself an argument for not putting a minimum in the Bill: a minimum would be a wise precaution. 
None the less, the Minister asks me to trust the Government and go with experience. Who am I to argue? I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Greg Knight: As we have heard, these are important changes to the structure of passenger representation, and they are not without controversy, particularly among Government Members. Opposition Members hope that the changes will provide robust and effective consumer representation for all rail passengers. We want to see a strongly passenger-focused organisation  that champions passengers' needs and, where necessary, embarrasses and harasses Ministers when they are found wanting.
Does the Minister accept that the new organisation will need to be flexible and responsive to passenger needs to bring about national passenger benefits? Does he not only envisage that the new body will help to shape policies that affect passengers but sees its remit, as we do, as a national campaigning and lobbying organisation able to secure improvements in the quality of rail passenger journeys, which will help passengers to obtain better value for money, deal with passenger complaints and possibly even undertake research? Will the Minister confirm that the council will have the power to undertake research, if it wishes to do so, and that the changes brought about by the Bill will not prevent any of the activities that I have mentioned from being pursued? Will the new Rail Passengers Council also be able to publish, if it decides to do so, regular national passenger surveys to inform our future debates? Passengers should always be able to ensure that their voices are being heard, and be reassured that they are at the heart of the decision-making process. Will the Minister confirm that none of the changes made by the Bill will make those aims less possible? 
We do not oppose the changes. We want passenger interests to be represented efficiently and the new body to become an effective consumer organisation, providing passengers and indeed Ministers with effective help and sound advice. If the Minister can reassure us that that is his intention, we will support him in keeping the clause in the Bill.

Tony McNulty: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for those comments. The Rail Passengers Council must be flexible and responsive. In the broad sweep of everything he said, I would be disappointed if it was not fulfilling those functions, including giving Ministers the proverbial kick that he suggests. If it is to be an effective consumer voice, much of what he described should prevail. As I understand it, none of the changes will prevent the new body developing or continuing in the direction that he suggests. It is in the interests of everyone in this House that there is an effective rail passengers' consumer voice. That is what we are seeking to achieve through this clause and schedule 5, and I am grateful for his support.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5 - Rail Passengers' Council Established By S. 19(1)

Question proposed, That this schedule be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.

Greg Knight: This is a comprehensive schedule. I was going to start by asking the Minister whether he is satisfied that the scope of the schedule is sufficient to prevent any abuse, but as he has approved the drafting  of the Bill, I presume that he is content, so my question may be otiose. However, I wish to refer him to a point of interest that I have.
Part 6 of the schedule deals with the regulation of procedure, and paragraph 15(6) refers to the need for the Rail Passengers Council to keep minutes, which we would all expect it to do in any event. What is the position on publishing minutes? In the light of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and to engage the public in a wider debate on what they want from their rail network, does the Minister feel that minutes should be published unless anything contained in them refers to matters mentioned in paragraph 16 of part 6, in which case we accept that there would be a need to maintain confidentiality? Will the Council be encouraged as far as possible to publish its minutes so that it is engaging in a wider dialogue with the public, many of whom may not know what is going on at meetings? 
I have another point to raise for my own curiosity. I notice that copies of the minutes are to be sent to the Secretary of State. When that happens in other instances, are the minutes sent in hard copy or does the Department now encourage groups to send them electronically? In this computer age, when a body or organisation has a duty to send a copy of its minutes to the Minister or to his Department, it should be done electronically. Will that be permissible under the wording of the Bill, and does it take place already?

John Pugh: I have a couple of observations to make on schedule 5. Most of the schedule is procedural and entirely necessary, although one inspects it for hidden traps. There are sections on members and staff, finance, financial procedures, status and supplementary powers and procedure itself. What the schedule is light on is spelling out the exact functions of the body. They are presumed and mentioned in the schedule and also in clause 20, and there is also much talk about the delegation of the functions, but does the RPC simply inherit all the functions as specified in the 1993 Act or can it acquire new ones? Is that the intention of the provision?
The schedule states that the Secretary of State has the power to give out a grant as he may determine. The grant is not related to any specific purpose, and it would be nice to hear what is anticipated and to some extent excluded. The Secretary of State can also direct the RPC to convene sub-committees, but it appears that the council itself has no power to generate its own sub-committees or regional committees if it so wishes. The council and how it develops over time remains in part a creature of the Minister. 
A provision for the annual report states that the RPC 
''must have regard to the desirability of excluding from the report . . . what would or might seriously and prejudicially affect the interests'' 
of individuals or a corporate body. If one adds to that the carte blanche definition of confidentiality in paragraph 16(3), and that in paragraph 16(4), where it is again defined as something that is prejudicial to the  interests of the individual or corporate body, it would seem—I may have misunderstood it—to hamper unduly what the RPC may produce. Could the RPC, for example, be critical of a TOC or operator of some kind if the operator were to allege that it was detrimental to his commercial interests to have certain data disclosed? If the confidentiality clauses are so restrictive that the annual report is unduly limited, it is a template if not for a toothless body then for a muzzled one. I would welcome some reassurance from the Minister.

Tony McNulty: The point made by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire about the RPC not only securing minutes but providing them to the Secretary of State is an entirely fair one. It has to provide them because it is a non-departmental public body and the Department for Transport is the sponsor Department. It is foreseen that the minutes will be sent electronically. We have gone beyond someone on a bicycle having to wheel round a hard copy for everybody as well. The RPC will continue to operate under a freedom of information regime. The caveats about confidentiality against the body corporate or individual are entirely fair—a stock phrase that is inserted in most Bills these days. I know that it is tempting to run round with a magnifying glass looking for an elephant trap like a junior Sherlock Holmes because the nasty Government are trying to cover up everything, but they are not. The provisions are elements of the new freedom of information regime, stating that in all circumstances there are or will be items of confidentiality that are germane to the RPC on a corporate, individual or other level. Those aside, both the annual report and the minutes of meetings will be put in the public domain.
The powers of the new body will be the existing powers of the RPC under section 76 of the 1993 Act. Those same powers are rolled forward. We are seeking to make the newly configured RPC a better and more effective consumer voice, rather than change the substance of what it does. Schedule 5 is precisely about putting in place the enabling framework for the RPC to do what it does. It does not outline what the RPC's functions are or are likely to be. It is entirely right that it is a skeletal framework of how it will carry out its business rather than going into substantive detail about the functions. In that context I commend schedule 5 in all its glory to the Committee. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Schedule 5 agreed to. 
Clauses 20 and 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6 - Functions retained by London Transport Users' Committee

Question proposed, That this schedule be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.

Mark Field: I shall not detain the Committee for long. I wanted to put on the record one or two of our concerns. The schedule applies specifically to the London Transport Users Committee. In the previous debate it was made clear—I thank the Minister for that—that that committee already takes on people from outside Greater London. It reflects the importance of Thameslink and other cross-London railway links. In view of the expansion that we have looked at in clauses 15 and 17, what action is being taken to ensure that the composition of the LTUC remains truly representative?
I should also like to touch on the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley. His point in the debate on clause 13 related to the variable quality of franchise holders and the need to ensure proper and effective scrutiny. Paragraph 3 of schedule 6 relates to the duty of the LTUC to investigate the record of franchise operators. Perhaps the Minister will have something to say both about the safeguards to prevent delays in investigating concerns about the record of particular franchise operators and, being even-handed here, to ensure that there are safeguards to prevent vexatious claims, especially in the run-up to franchise renegotiations. I neither wanted to detain the Committee overlong, nor to cover ground that we had already covered in the debate on clause 17.

Tony McNulty: The hon. Gentleman makes fair points, which are slightly misplaced. All schedule 6 does is to restore the status quo for the LTUC once the principal legislation from which the LTUC springs—in other words the RPC legislation—disappears. We have got rid of that and must somehow put it back in because we have left the LTUC on its own as an RPC. Much of what the schedule does is simply to restore the status quo.
I will be entirely frank with the hon. Gentleman and the Committee: there are one or two issues where the LTUC thinks that that is not quite the case and is looking to see whether we can get some clarity there. I am fairly convinced that the schedule simply maintains the status quo, but I remain to be advised otherwise. I will happily meet the LTUC again, with or without the hon. Gentleman, if that is how we need to take things forward. It is important that it is a substantive voice. 
As the map showed, the TFL land grab—that is purely shorthand for want of a better phrase—will have to go some way until it reaches the current LTUC boundaries. So the point about the LTUC keeping in step with an expanding TFL boundary is fair, but it is not of concern in the immediate future. If the hon. Gentleman knows the LTUC boundaries, he will know that there is some logic to them. When I spoke earlier, I was not suggesting that there was no logic to them, just that it was not necessarily the same logic that would dictate where the GLA boundary for rail services went in the first instance. So I am comfortable that the point about the LTUC keeping in step with the TFL boundary is not a burning issue and that it is not likely to be so in the immediate or mid-term future. The LTUC also raised that matter. 
I take the points on board. I have reflected on and addressed them. In substance, schedule 6 simply restores the status quo for the LTUC, after much of  what we have done with the old RPCs had taken it off the statute book. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman and I commend schedule 6 to the Committee. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Schedule 6 agreed to. 
Further consideration adjourned.—[Gillian Merron.] 
Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Five o'clock till Thursday 13 January at twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock.